Record Arctic Storm Melted Sea Ice

Months before Hurricane Sandy hurled the Atlantic Ocean into houses and cities along the East Coast, another record-breaking cyclone battered North America, helping push this year’s Arctic sea ice to a record low, a new study finds.

Arctic sea ice has been declining for decades, reaching a record low in September 2007 and hitting that record again in 2012.

“The Great Arctic Cyclone of August 2012” arose in Siberia on Aug. 2 and crossed the Arctic Ocean to Canada, lasting an unusually long 13 days. The cyclone hit a pressure minimum of 966 millibars on Aug. 6, the lowest ever recorded for an Arctic storm, professors Ian Simmonds and Irina Rudeva of the University of Melbourne in Australia report in the Dec. 15 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The pressure reading is only 26 mb higher than Hurricane Sandy’s record low of 940 mb. (A typical low-pressure system usually hits around 1,000 mb.)

“This pressure minimum and cyclone longevity are very atypical of Arctic storms, particularly in August,” the authors write in the study. “We conclude that [the storm] was the most extreme August Arctic cyclone.”

In terms of key properties, including pressure and radius, the Arctic cyclone ranks 13 out of all 19,625 Arctic storms on record since 1979, Simmonds and Rudeva report. “This storm truly deserves the title of ‘The Great Arctic Cyclone of August 2012’,” they said.

Impact on sea ice

Simmonds and Rudeva report that the storm greatly affected the record low sea ice in the Arctic this September.

“[A]nalyses we have conducted indicate [the storm] caused the dispersion and separation of a significant amount of ice, while its removal left the main pack more exposed to wind and waves associated with [the storm], facilitating the further decay of the main pack,” they write in their report. Read More

– Analysis and diagnosis is performed on the dramatic Arctic storm of August 2012

– Storm’s evolution and longevity tied to baroclinicity and a tropopause vortex

– Storm is the most intense Arctic August system in the record (since 1979)

On 2 August 2012 a dramatic storm formed over Siberia, moved into the Arctic, and died in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago on 14 August. During its lifetime its central pressure dropped to 966 hPa, leading it to be dubbed ‘The Great Arctic Cyclone of August 2012’. This cyclone occurred during a period when the sea ice extent was on the way to reaching a new satellite-era low, and its intense behavior was related to baroclinicity and a tropopause polar vortex. The pressure of the storm was the lowest of all Arctic August storms over our record starting in 1979, and the system was also the most extreme when a combination of key cyclone properties was considered. Even though, climatologically, summer is a ‘quiet’ time in the Arctic, when compared with all Arctic storms across the period it came in as the 13th most extreme storm, warranting the attribution of ‘Great’.

116 thoughts on “Record Arctic Storm Melted Sea Ice”

Interestingly, powerful Arctic storms are more prevalent when jet stream meridionality increases because flows of warm air can more readily and more persistently approach the poles.
Such meridionality is a feature of a cooling world rather than a warming world and seems to be linked to low levels of solar activity.
Cue screams of ‘not possible’ from our favourite solar expert.

“Arctic sea ice has been declining for decades, reaching a record low in September 2007 and hitting that record again in 2012.”
More lies in place of science. It has not been “declining for decades” because there was a recent period of growth.http://i49.tinypic.com/xudsy.png
It seems Live Science have a little difficulty with the science part in their name.
It declined from 1997 to 2007 . That is ONE decade not “decades” Before that there were cycles of loss and gain. Since that period there has been a gain and a loss cycle that looks uncannily like the pre 1997 cycles.
Just in case I lost any of the science guys over at Live Science, d/dt means rate of change. When rate of change is bigger than zero it is called a GAIN in Arctic ice.

@Stephen Wilde:..Such meridionality is a feature of a cooling world rather than a warming world and seems to be linked to low levels of solar activity…
Proof positive of Climate Change, then? We are now being told that ANY unusual or extreme event is man-made climate change, following the standard argument:
1 – It has never happened before
2 – We don’t know what has caused it
3 – So it must be man-made…….
4 – Profit! (but only for a very few select humans…)

Thanks for your ideas Stephen Wilde. You were the one who educated me wrt the Jet Stream movement, i.e., warm world Jet closer to poles, cold world Jet moves toward equator.
Nice work: “Such meridionality is a feature of a cooling world rather than a warming world and seems to be linked to low levels of solar activity.”
By the way, could it be that the mysterious driver for the El Nino/ La Nina is, wait for it, the SUN.
We are now in a downward spiral: Sun south, low Solar activity, extensive reflectivity due to massive snow cover [I assume that Canada also has extensive snow cover]. It will be very interesting to see the December/January Global Temperature Anomaly.

Nice timing for this topic. Just yesterday I came across something I found interesting.
It’s related to the claim in this statement from above.
“Arctic sea ice has been declining for decades, reaching a record low in September 2007 and hitting that record again in 2012.
Has it been declining for decades?
Using this interactive graph at NSIDChttp://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
I plotted a spaghetti graph of Arctic sea ice for years 79-98 minus two odd ball years 1990 and 1995.
They pack tightly on the 1979-2000 average staying nearly entirely within the standard deviation, showing no Arctic sea ice decline.
The Arctic sea ice decline only occurred during the latest years 1999-2012.
The same years that no warming occurred.
So the ice loss was a delayed response to warming? Or it has nothing to do with what scientists have measured as global temperature.
Or I am confused and “Arctic sea ice has been declining for decades”.
It just took a timeout from 1979-1998?

Dr.Lurz asked:
“By the way, could it be that the mysterious driver for the El Nino/ La Nina is, wait for it, the SUN.?”
I believe so.
When a more active sun draws the climate zones poleward then the subtropical high pressure cells expand and global cloudiness decreases which allows more sunlight into the oceans thereby skewing ENSO in favour of El Ninos rather than La Ninas.
That gives us climate changes on the scale of MWP to LIA and LIA to date.
Note, though, that there is also a Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation of about 60 years which may be internally produced.
Hence the upward stepping in global temperatures from one multidecadal oscillation to the next as noted by Bob Tisdale and others. I think we will have experienced such upward stepping from LIA to date and would have seen downward stepping from MWP to LIA.
The high melt of this year represents the effect of that anomalous storm superimposed on the residual lagged effects of the past 30 years of dominant El Ninos which are still finding their way into the Arctic Ocean past Spitzbergen.
It is possible that without that storm the recovery since 2007 might have continued.

“Arctic sea ice has been declining for decades, reaching a record low in September 2007 and hitting that record again in 2012.”
More lies in place of science. It has not been “declining for decades” because there was a recent period of growth.

It is not a lie. They are explaining the general trend that has been occurring. Would it be a lie if I supported evidence of the seasonal cycle in Rochester, NY by saying, “In Rohcester, temperatures have been declining for several months…”? By your logic, this would be a lie since one could in fact find many shorter periods during that time when temperatures have risen, not declined. Does that then negate the general trend?

It declined from 1997 to 2007 . That is ONE decade not “decades” Before that there were cycles of loss and gain. Since that period there has been a gain and a loss cycle that looks uncannily like the pre 1997 cycles.

Where are you getting the data to support this from? The data presented here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral/ certainly doesn’t show that.
As for the general gist of this post: Of course, in a record low sea ice year, there is likely to be a proximate cause as to why this particular year the sea ice got particularly low. That doesn’t negate the fact that the sea ice decline caused by AGW is also to blame any more than an all-time record high temperature in July in Rochester would negate the importance of the seasonal cycle’s contribution even though one would surely be able to identify a weather pattern that contributed to making that particular day particularly hot.

interesting that some are mentioning that decline of sea ice is happening after 1997 / 1998;
this is the period your Lord Monckton is describing as : 18 annual climate gabfests: 16 years without warming (Dec 1 st on wuwt) ;
is this a paradox, a contradiction or just stupidity (by Monckton)

I seem to remember seeing photo’s, of British and American Sub’s at the north pole with broken ice all around. That would have been 1958 or 59, so low ice is nothing new, in fact the 1960’s and 70’s, were the cooling part of a natural 60 year cycle. We have returned to that cooling cycle.

I’m a bit confused by this statement:
“(A typical low-pressure system usually hits around 1,000 mb.)”
I remember, when bringing a boat from Japan to Fiji in 1994, we had a pressure difference of 108 mb between a high over Siberia and a low in the north Pacific, the effects of which could be felt south of the equator. It was the most miserable of trips I’d ever experienced.
Looking here at our current weather map http://metservice.com/maps-radar/maps/tasman-sea-nz it is quite obvious that a typical low pressure system quite typically has pressures well below 1,000 mb.
Whilst I’m here, all the very best to everyone for the New Year. I look forward to a further diminution of CAGW hysteria for 2013.

@ Stephen WildeInterestingly, powerful Arctic storms are more prevalent when jet stream meridionality increases because flows of warm air can more readily and more persistently approach the poles.
Such meridionality is a feature of a cooling world rather than a warming world and seems to be linked to low levels of solar activity.
HH Lamb made the same point in the 1960’s. I have been arguing for a while that meridionality does two things:-
1) It introduces cold polar air into mid latitudes, as we have had in the UK for most of this year.
2) At the other side of the kink in the jetstream, it returns warm air into the Arctic.
A warmer Arctic has been blamed by some scientists for this phenomenon, but surely they are (wilfully?) confusing cause and effect.

lets recall again when I came on here and announced that a storm was brewing and that the reccord would get smashed— people here.
1. denied it.
2. claimed the storm was normal
3. argued that the record would not be broken
4. switched to looking at other records of ice decline (IMS)
5 attacked satellite records.
Now that those knee jerk reactions are forgotten and people accept the storm, they also forget the other things noted at the time. This kind of storm is now more likely BECAUSE OF the increase in open water earlier in the year. This kind of storm is also more likely to do more damage to the ice because the ice has thinned over decades. Simply put, the climate effect of thnning ice and more open water over decades creates the conditions where these types of storms are
A) more likely than before.
B) more damaging to the ice than before.
Its never “just” the weather, but a combination of long term trends, long term changes and the weather. Lets face it, if this storm hits ice of the past that was meters thick, its just a big wind

Joel Shore says:
December 27, 2012 at 8:05 amOf course, in a record low sea ice year, there is likely to be a proximate cause as to why this particular year the sea ice got particularly low. That doesn’t negate the fact that the sea ice decline caused by AGW is also to blame
By which you mean that it doesn’t negate the supposition that AGW is also to blame for the sea ice decline. While some very small portion of the sea ice decline may be due to AGW, like AGW itself, the effect is too small to distinguish from the noise of natural climate change.
But, by all means, keep banging that AGW drum. If nothing else, it provides entertainment value.

We can’t have it both ways. If there were twelve bigger storms in the satellite record then why did this years storm lead to a record low ice cover? Consistency mon cher is the way to win the war of words with the warmists. They might not understand the concept, but we must.

Steven Mosher says:
December 27, 2012 at 9:36 amSimply put, the climate effect of thnning ice and more open water over decades creates the conditions where these types of storms are
A) more likely than before.
B) more damaging to the ice than before.
A positive feedback loop then? We’re doomed!

@Joel Shore
“It is not a lie. They are explaining the general trend that has been occurring.”
I agree with you here. The trend is down.
While I am suspicious of any data these days I think I can trust the data from the “Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center.”http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_range_ice-ext.png
This data shows a decline with the following note of caution:
1. This data shows a ~30 year record. This is still a short time trend. Anecdotal information tells us that periods of low ice range are not unusual.
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Monthly Weather Review for November 1922 – Washington Post (Associated Press) 1922
2. This data only shows a downwards trend starting from between 1990-1995 so the downwards trend is very short. Too short to make any useful and therefor meaningful predictions.
I wouldn’t trust the data from Tamino. Even the title of the page “arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral” shows considerable bias. It sounds scary but it is not based on objective science.
We have now had so many scary and false ‘death spiral’ predictions (Rants) from the usual crowd.
2007: The Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” (NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally 2007)http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html
2008: The ice is in a “death spiral” and may disappear in the summers within a couple of decades, according to Mark Serrezehttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080917-sea-ice.html
2010: “I stand by my previous statements that the Arctic summer sea ice cover is in a death spiral. It’s not going to recover,” — Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in the U.S. city of Boulder, Colorado. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52896
Sea Ice in Its “Death Spiral”
by Matthew McDermotthttp://biophile.co.za/the-biofiles/sea-ice-in-its-%E2%80%9Cdeath-spiral%E2%80%9D
Arctic Death Spiral: Sea Ice Passes De Facto Tipping Point Thanks to Deniers, Media Blow The Story, Again
By Joe Romm on Aug 9, 2011 at 4:02 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/09/291788/arctic-death-spiral-sea-ice-tipping-point/
Arctic ice in ‘death spiral’ means civil resistance is our best hope
Saturday, October 30, 2010
By Simon Butlerhttp://www.greenleft.org.au/node/45871
The following statement is of course fact-free conjecture on your part.
“That doesn’t negate the fact that the sea ice decline caused by AGW is also to blame……”

Stephen Wilde says:
December 27, 2012 at 7:24 a
“When a more active sun draws the climate zones poleward then the subtropical high pressure cells expand and global cloudiness decreases which allows more sunlight into the oceans thereby skewing ENSO in favour of El Ninos rather than La Ninas.”
You keep getting this wrong. El Nino and negative AO/NAO go together.
Dr. Lurtz says:
December 27, 2012 at 6:46 am
“Thanks for your ideas Stephen Wilde.”
There’s a fine chance he got from me:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/24/ipcc-ar5-chapter-11-maintaining-the-spin/#comment-1181429

Paul Homewood says:
December 27, 2012 at 9:14 am
“A warmer Arctic has been blamed by some scientists for this phenomenon, but surely they are (wilfully?) confusing cause and effect.”
Yes and they should know better because of the obvious correlation between loss of summer Arctic sea ice, and negative NAO conditions, especially when there is also a strong easterly QBO.

It would be worth while to also take note of what a large storm does to the water temperatures of the warm water it passes over. It cools them substantially and due to wave mixing, blends that cooled surface water with warmer waters below. A large storm is a heat engine that very effectively cools off the warm water it draws its energy from. By breaking up the ice and allowing it to move out into warmer waters it is also indirectly cooling waters outside the arctic.
The planet is starting to shed heat, and ice free waters in the arctic are one of the ways it dumps substantial heat to space. We have traded a highly localized reservoir of ice for a general cooling of the arctic ocean basin and surrounding oceans and land areas. Net effect is loss of heat that would have been retained if the insulating ice was thicker.
I suspect that this is another thermostat mechanism like the thunderstorms in the equatorial region that begins the process of dumping heat to space at the end of a warming cycle and starts us into the next cooling cycle.
Once substantial open water exists in the arctic, it “switches on” this cooling process of large storms which flush out ice into warmer ocean basins, and cools the arctic ocean waters then when the arctic winter comes with no insulating ice cover, the re-freeze process dumps enormous amounts of heat as the open waters freeze and radiate away their latent heat of fusion to the open arctic night sky and space.
Rather than a sign of run-away heating these episodes are signs of the planets self regulatory feedback thermostats which strongly resist any run-away climate catastrophe. Just like there is a critical convective potential energy that allows thunderstorms to suddenly form and pump enormous amounts of heat energy high up to the tropopause where it can be easily radiated away in the stratosphere, in the arctic substantial open water in the arctic at the onset of re-freeze in the winter and sunless days turn on the equivalent process in the arctic as the tropopause essentially vanishes (see chiefio’s page on the height of the tropopause as a measure of heat input http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/ ).
Once arctic nightfall occurs this open water is free to radiate tremendous amounts of heat energy from the open waters surface directly to space, and build up a new ice cover which in following seasons will be broken up by similar storms and flushed out into the northern oceans cooling them just like the ice you put in your glass of iced tea.
This I believe is one of the key mechanisms driving the 30 year cycles of heating and cooling of the oceans as this arctic heat pump to space turns on and off as the ice thins or thickens.
Larry

The 2007 record low was also cauesed by weather, not AGW http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html.
“Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.”

Steven Mosher says:
December 27, 2012 at 9:36 am
lets recall again when I came on here and announced that a storm was brewing and that the reccord would get smashed— people here.
1. denied it.
2. claimed the storm was normal
3. argued that the record would not be broken
4. switched to looking at other records of ice decline (IMS)
5 attacked satellite records.

See: http://crushpessimism.com/2007/06/overgeneralization.html
“Overgeneralizing makes people stupid.”
Steve, did all of the “people here” do at least one of those 5 things? You do yourself no favors by your constant attempts at categorizing everyone on WUWT as one type of person. You would do better to discuss issues one-one with those you disagree with. You would come across much wiser.

Kevin Kilty says:
December 27, 2012 at 11:44 am
Yes, but the “Arctic” – to 60 N – does have an area of some millions of square miles – nine or ten million, I think [long time since I did area of part of a sphere].
A dozen, or a dozen and a half, ‘Lows’ in that area, each week, seems not hugely out of order to me.

FijiDave says:
December 27, 2012 at 9:01 am
I agree that 1000 mb isn’t very low. Perhaps, as an average of all cyclones, it’s about right – if every cyclone, even the nine-hour-wonders covering a coupole of counties are included.
For what it’s worth, off NW Europe [roughly in the (UK) Met Office Shipping forecast areas], my rule of thumb [my guided guess, if you prefer] is
980 mb – Gales [Beaufort8]
960 mb – Storm [Bf 10]
940 mb – winds of ‘Hurricane force’, Bf 12.
free to use, with the usual caveats – guided guess in UK waters etc.
But with forty years in shipping, it seems quite robust as a rule of thumb [not exact – but a good guided guess].
Do kids do estimation today?

“Months before Hurricane Sandy hurled the Atlantic Ocean into houses and cities along the East Coast, another record-breaking cyclone battered North America, helping push this year’s Arctic sea ice to a record low, a new study finds.”
Nothing record breaking about Sandy as a storm, only the fact of where it occured made it some kind of “record” and I use the term loosely.

No and that is probably part of the problem no one seems motivated to make simple checks for reasonableness in any of the published articles or studies. If they did they would see that some of these problems are really non-issues or so far out of reasonable bounds that they can be disregarded as propaganda rather than science.
In the late 1960’s in engineering school some of our professors would insist that the students make an educated guess about the answer to the problem before they ever picked up their slide rules (calculators were not available then), If you had no idea what the order of magnitude of the likely answer was you could very easily get answers that were 100’s or 1000’s of times too big or too small with those tools, so the estimation of likely answers was an important double check on the likelihood that your answer was at least in the ball park if not correct.
If the answer you came up with was 100 times too big or small compared to your guess, then that was a big warning flag to go back and check your work AND your assumptions.
Larry

Thanks for your reply, but defining the Arctic to begin at 60N is much too far south and provides the Arctic with far too much area–66N is closer; and, to have two, or so, cyclones form in this region per day on average, simply seems too high. Where can I find some credible statistic?

I believe that this can be resolved very simply. There are three possible cases:
1) It is getting hotter.
2) It is getting colder
3) We don’t know WTF is happening
And according to the Precautionary Principle, we must prepare ourselves for all contingencies. I hope that makes everything clearer.

Larry Ledwick (hotrod) indeed so.
I am mostly self taught in math, and many years ago managed to acquire a small book called Numerical Approximation by B.R. Morton and edited by Walter Ledermann. This fine little book of the 1960s has helped me on many an occasions when reasonable estimation was required but not too much data was available. It has a most useful chapter on interpolation – how and when to use them – something I feel is lost today.

Let’s take a look at this “Death Spiral” of arctic ice.
Present Arctic ice minimums result from the higher SST of recent decades. These minimums reflect the new equilibrium between winter ice formation and summer ice melt, attained in the past decade. The year 2007 showed the lowest ice extent, excepting only the 2012 minimum which was due to the extraordinary storm of early August, and not reflecting increases in arctic SST. The new equilibrium is quantified by an average of the minimums of the past decade, with minimum ice extent fluctuating around this average. Hence, future season-end ice extent should not drop significantly below this average. Note that winter sea ice extent has not altered much in recent decades.
The global SST trend has remained flat for sixteen years and SST have actually decreased, and so we can reasonably expect decreasing Arctic sea ice melt in the coming years. The “Death Spiral” is rank propaganda and has served its purpose very well, but it soon will be discarded and replaced by a new slogan: acid oceans and Pickled Polar Bears.

Martin van Etten says:
December 27, 2012 at 8:30 amthis is the period your Lord Monckton is describing as : 18 annual climate gabfests: 16 years without warming (Dec 1 st on wuwt) ;
is this a paradox, a contradiction or just stupidity (by Monckton)
None of the above.
To the nearest year, there has been no warming at all for 16 years, statistical or otherwise, on several data sets.
Data sets with a o slope for at least 15 years:
1. HadCrut3: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
2. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
3. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November)
See the graph below to show it all.http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.25/plot/rss/from:1997.0/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1
However in view of the significance of the 16 years lately, I would like to elaborate on RSS. The slope for 15 years and 11 months from January 1997 on RSS is -4.1 x 10^-4. But the slope for 16 years and 0 months from December 1996 is +1.3 x 10^-4. So since the magnitude of the negative slope since January 1997 is 3 times than the magnitude of the positive slope since December 1996, I believe I can say that since a quarter of the way through December 1996, in other words from December 8, 1996 to December 7, 2012, the slope is 0. This is 16 years. Therefore RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.

Richard M says:
December 27, 2012 at 11:05 am
Steven Mosher says: …
Richard…unfortunately, Steve now flies into WUWT threads with random comments that are hard to decipher (and poorly worded). You probably won’t receive any response. One of my resolutions for 2013 is not respond to his (and other similar) comments – it does no good when the conversation is one-sided…

Martin Van Etten says Dec. 27, 8:30 AM
is this a paradox, a contradiction or just stupidity (by Monckton)
=============================
You are what is known as a drive-by spitballer. If you have an argument, you should present it. But your type never gets past spit-balls.

Steven Mosher
Do you think Arctic sea Ice variability is natural or man made?
Sea Ice forms when temperatures fall below the freezing point of water, is this physical property man made? Stop beaten around the bush and explain how the arctic sea Ice increases every winter and decreases every summer, the variability is Natural, because it follows a seasonal cycle. the abnormalities that you are suggesting and that are caused by “warming” are not unusual at all, even this year (2012) the Arctic sea Ice and Antarctic sea Ice have both been at one point above normal.
After a period of heightened solar activity (where the planet’s energy comes from) You would expect all that solar energy to build up and be released, regardless of what the composition of our atmosphere is.

During the global cooling scare of the 1960s-1970s, generally more severe storms and severe weather were predicted to occur from cooling. (Examples include the 1976 National Geographic article: http://tinyurl.com/cxo4d3l ). Likewise, for instance, http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/sep/11sep2012a4.html notes data from a study finding more storminess occurred in the North Atlantic during the Little Ice Age than during the Medieval Warm Period. There was a greater polar-equator temperature difference during the cold LIA (for the tropics never change temperature as much as more northern latitudes), driving north-south convection.
Anyway, weather fluctuations, like the arctic storm, are particularly why it is important to see the annual average of arctic ice extent rather than just letting a single month be cherry-picked. As an annual average, seen in http://www.webcitation.org/6AKKakUIo (which was up on the U.K. government site before deletion from its original host), the last couple years had an average arctic ice extent far more similar to the mid-1990s than one would guess from common misleading reports. Such is particularly striking in combination with how http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif illustrates that the arctic was not warmer in the mid-1990s than in the late 1930s. Figures 2 and 3 in http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/XX_Arctic.htm fit with the preceding, by showing how arctic ice extent in the 1990s was not very exceptional at all compared to the years near 1940.
The history of arctic ice and temperature trends seen in the preceding is not surprising compared to the history of average temperature over the whole Northern Hemisphere, before later revisionist adjustments to the data, as shown in the http://tinyurl.com/cxo4d3l article of the global cooling scare period.
Such also fits with the utter lack of CO2 versus temperature correlation from 200 to 11000 years ago seen in http://tinyurl.com/3d4mrbt , explained in http://tinyurl.com/7esh3f6 , as well as the big picture seen in http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg and supported by http://s13.postimage.org/ka0rmuwgn/gcrclouds.gif (click to enlarge).

@ mpainter @ James at 48 @ Werner Brozek
sceptics complain that there is no discussion about their ideas,
discussion sometimes start with questions;
I asked how come there is arctic melt, while there is no warming (according to Monckton and others);
that could be an interesting discussion, since there is no compression because volume is also down;
thats all mpainter;
your type: a little bit more friendlyness could benefit us all;

Martin van Etten says:
December 27, 2012 at 6:11 pm
@ mpainter @ James at 48 @ Werner Brozek
sceptics complain that there is no discussion about their ideas,
discussion sometimes start with questions;
I asked how come there is arctic melt, while there is no warming (according to Monckton and others);

Why does a pan of water continue to boil for a few minutes after you shut off the stove?
Larry

Martin Van Etten;
Clean up your act and you will get more consideration. If you have point to make, then make it. Inferring stupidity (your word, not mine) to someone because you do not understand is a spit-ball.
Your comment is there for all to see. Do not pretend that you were nice.
Concerning your question, it was answered for you at 2:53 PM this thread by yours truly, and you have not thanked me.

@ mpainter 7.32
You gave it a try, to answer me, thats true, thank you;
but it is no answer;
every NSIDC graph shows a continuing decline in sea ice extent; PIOMAS is even worse in volume;
I havent seen a sign of the ‘new equilibrium’, although temperature is on a plateau the last decade;
this winter its also minimum, both in extent and volume;
well, we will see what is happening the coming summers;
regards;

Stephen Wilde says:
December 27, 2012 at 5:10 am
Interestingly, powerful Arctic storms are more prevalent when jet stream meridionality increases because flows of warm air can more readily and more persistently approach the poles.
Such meridionality is a feature of a cooling world rather than a warming world and seems to be linked to low levels of solar activity.
Cue screams of ‘not possible’ from our favourite solar expert.
======================================
Many do not understand the paradoxical effect of short term weather on climate. As the positive amount of heat imbalance is forced outward to polar regions melting will occur, Not because it is getting warmer but because the amount of cooling air in polar regions leaves a negative pressure zone allowing that intrusion. Once the heat balance is regained is when true cooling takes hold rapidly. [We’re] simply in the buffer zone for a few years.. 16 to be exact… funny that is about the length of the buffer historically.

justthefactswuwt says:
December 27, 2012 at 10:35 pmIf you are open to writing an article in early 2013, I would be happy to help edit and post it on WUWT. In fact, we might want to make this a regular feature. I’ll send you an email, please let me know your thoughts.
Hello
Unfortunately, my regular computer is out of service and the email does not work with the laptop I am using now. I would be happy to have this as a regular feature if you wish, but I have been sending these monthly stats on both WUWT and on Dr. Spencer’s site whenever the monthly data comes out each month. Of course I may just have the latest month for RSS and UAH at the time and the previous month for the others. Is there any problem with simply taking my post and have you edit it as you see fit and then making it a top post every month? Are there any additions or deletions you would want me to make in order for it to be a top post?
I was thinking of adding the following for example:
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
(By the way, do you know why wti has stopped in August? I may have to stop this line if it is not being done anymore.)

Antony is absolutely right. Without the record storm, the sea ice extent would NOT have set a record low. Now….if he can explain the other 33 years since 1979 that has caused the Arctic sea ice VOLUME to drop over 72% from 1979 to 2012……we would be in good shape:)

Every discussion of Arctic sea ice that purports a global process as cause, must, if hoping for intellectual respect, discuss Antarctic sea ice as well.
Since the sum of the sea ice of both poles is the measure of “global” sea ice, this sum is relevant. And this sum has been apparently stable for a long time—-making the statement “Arctic Sea Ice decline is due to global warming” improbable, at best.

@ justthefactswuwt / December 27, 2012 at 9:43 pm
the link you provided indeed answers most of my questions:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/16/the-economist-provides-readers-with-erroneous-information-about-arctic-sea-ice/
specially the remarks of Peter Wadhams in the the Economist article ‘Uncovering an ocean’ are very helpfull:
According to Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, the average thickness of the pack ice has fallen by roughly half since the 1970s, probably for two main reasons. One is a rise in sea temperatures: in the summer of 2007 coastal parts of the Arctic Ocean measured 7°C—bracingly swimmable. The other was a prolonged eastward shift in the early 1990s in the Arctic’s prevailing winds, known as the Arctic Oscillation.
( http://tinyurl.com/c57khx6 )
If you had written, first there was warming, later there was also wind and current there would have been less confusion;
If Monckton had written ‘increase of warming has stropped’, in stead of ‘warming has stopped’ it would have been clear immediately;
regards and best wishes for the new year; over and out;

Martin van Etten,
I think you are missing the central point: the decline in Arctic ice is an example of completely harmless natural variability. On balance, an ice-free Arctic would be a real benefit, drastically reducing fuel costs for shipping, and reducing transit times. The ice is floating, therefore it would not contribute one millimeter to the sea level.
Climate alarmists cannot ever bring themselves to admit that many of the changes we observe are a net benefit. CO2 certainly falls into that category, as does the decline in Arctic sea ice. But when the alarmist belief system requires that they demonize every possible change, they have no choice: their religion requires it, and apostasy is not tolerated.

Looking at the data from Jaxa and from the NSIDC, there were really 5 different periods this year that were substantially different than normal. Otherwise, 2012 was mostly just the average growth/melt rates.
– In February and March, the ice continued to gain extent at a higher level than normal;
– In late-April, there was a large melt compared to normal;
– in early-June, the most change occurred compared to normal melt rates;
– in early to mid-August, the large storms broke up the ice and caused more melt over a longer period of time than is typical. Storms can do this and occur regularly but these ones lasted for almost 3 weeks; and,
– mid-October was an extremely large re-freeze event (this might becoming more common now but 2012 really sticks out).
Daily melt rate (5 day moving average change) versus the average going back to 1972 for both Jaxa and the NSIDC figures. Jaxa and the NSIDC are fairly similar although their base is different.http://s7.postimage.org/y5bbvho2z/Daily_Sea_Ice_Change_Dec_2012.png

Werner Brozek says: December 28, 2012 at 10:11 amI would be happy to have this as a regular feature if you wish, but I have been sending these monthly stats on both WUWT and on Dr. Spencer’s site whenever the monthly data comes out each month.
It will get more visibility as an article.Of course I may just have the latest month for RSS and UAH at the time and the previous month for the others.
We should probably wait until all the data is in before publishing, i.e. do a update using using full year 2012 for all data sets and we can figure it out from there.Is there any problem with simply taking my post and have you edit it as you see fit and then making it a top post every month?
We need to give it an article framework, with introductory and explanatory paragraphs so that it is reasonably comprehensible to a broad audience, We need to include images so that people can see the evidence without having to click. We need to meticulously link to and document the data sources and analysis methods, so that people can readily recreate and validate the results for themselves.Are there any additions or deletions you would want me to make in order for it to be a top post?
I think what you have is a good start, but we will also need links to each Wood For Trees’ plot used to derive each result, so they can be included in the article and I can capture the images from there. I might also add in the image of each plot directly from its source, which I have most here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-extreme-weather-update/
as well as links to the raw data;http://www.woodfortrees.org/credits
in case people want to validate those. I can draft a few introductory and explanatory paragraphs, but will need you to also draft a few, including one clearly explaining your calculation method and rationale such that a high school student can easily understand and repeat it. If you can keep posting stuff in this thread, I’ll help you to frame out an article and fill it in.I was thinking of adding the following for example:
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
I would include the prior year anomaly, prior year overall rank, and the warmest year with anomaly. Also a link to the Wood For Trees’ plot and the source for the ranking and anomaly. There might be additional elements, but let’s see how it develops. This article should be an unbiased and unimpeachable assessment of each temperature data set.(By the way, do you know why wti has stopped in August? I may have to stop this line if it is not being done anymore.)
The WTI (WoodForTrees Temperature Index)

“is created from the mean of HADCRUT3VGL, GISTEMP, RSS and UAH, offset by their baseline differences. It covers only the time period where all four series are valid, so begins in 1979 and will only contain the latest month’s values when all four sources are in. It is updated from the master sources at 3am GMT/BST each night.” “The four sources used are the four global sources most often quoted in climate studies, plus there are two land/sea-based (HADCRUT3, GISTEMP) and two from satellite air measurements (RSS, UAH).”http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#wti

Update to UAH v5.5 & GISTEMP fix
19th November 2012:
WFT now uses the new UAH 5.5 dataset. Here is their changelog describing the rationale for the update.
I’ve also fixed a problem in the GISTEMP file reader which was adding a bogus zero sample to the end of the dataset.http://www.woodfortrees.org/

but recommend that you email paul at woodfortrees.com, as I am sure that he would welcome the heads up and he might be able to readily fix the WTI.

Martin van Etten says: December 28, 2012 at 3:13 pmAccording to Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, the average thickness of the pack ice has fallen by roughly half since the 1970s, probably for two main reasons. One is a rise in sea temperatures: in the summer of 2007 coastal parts of the Arctic Ocean measured 7°C—bracingly swimmable. The other was a prolonged eastward shift in the early 1990s in the Arctic’s prevailing winds, known as the Arctic Oscillation.
Sea temperature and sea ice are quite difficult to untangle, i.e. did increased sea temperature cause a decrease in sea ice, did a decrease in sea ice cause an increase in sea temperature, or both?If you had written, first there was warming, later there was also wind and current there would have been less confusion;
But what you have written is erroneous, according to this 2012 paper “Subarctic and Arctic sea surface temperature and its relation to ocean heat content 1982–2010”:http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011JC007770.shtml

The analysis shows that much of the warming of the North Atlantic subpolar gyre during the period occurred in 1990s and compensated for cooling during the decades of the early 1960s to mid-1990s in this same region.

“was a prolonged eastward shift in the early 1990s in the Arctic’s prevailing winds, known as the Arctic Oscillation. This moved a lot of ice from the Beaufort Gyre, a revolving current in the western Arctic, to the ocean’s other main current, the Transpolar Drift Stream, which runs down the side of Siberia. A lot of thick, multi-year ice was flushed into the Atlantic and has not been replaced.

“extreme changes in the Arctic Oscillation in the early 1990s — and not warmer temperatures of recent years — are largely responsible for declines in how much sea ice covers the Arctic Ocean, with near record lows having been observed during the last three years, University of Washington researchers say.”

“The decreases in recent decades, which are also partially due to circulation-driven ice export through the Fram Strait between Greenland and Svalbard (Vinje, 2001), have coincided with a positive trend in the NAO, with unusually high index values in the late 1980s and 1990s.”

Due to an increasing rate in the ice drainage through the Fram Strait during the 1990s, this decade is characterized by a state of decreasing ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean.

As such it appears that, at minimum, the changes in wind and current occurred simultaneous to the increase in sea temperature, and there is in fact evidence that “extreme changes in the Arctic Oscillation in the early 1990s — and not warmer temperatures of recent years — are largely responsible for declines in how much sea ice covers the Arctic Ocean”.If Monckton had written ‘increase of warming has stropped’, in stead of ‘warming has stopped’ it would have been clear immediately;
I am not sure what you mean. Do you dispute Werner’s calculations?http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/27/record-arctic-storm-melted-sea-ice/#comment-1184736
If yes, why? Do you think that Earth has warmed significantly in the last 10 – 15 years? Can you present data such that we can validate it?
If no, then how many years without warming do you think are necessary before we can reasonably state that the “warming has stopped”?regards and best wishes for the new year
May you have an enlightened, happy and healthy New Year

justthefactswuwt says:
December 28, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Thank you for your reply. I will work on the things you mentioned and send everything to this site and let you decide how to present it. But just a few questions and comments for now.We should probably wait until all the data is in before publishing, i.e. do a update using using full year 2012 for all data sets and we can figure it out from there.
I have no problem with that, however I have been sending this information to Dr. Spencer’s site and the WUWT site as soon as the UAH monthly anomaly is in. As you know, UAH may come out on the third day of the month and right now, December 28, hadsst2 is still not out for November! As you may know, whenever someone asks about things, I often just give the latest, whether it is the monthly rank or the longest time the slope is 0. Virtually no one looks at a site 25 days after it first comes out. So would it be OK if on January 4, I just do what I have been doing this past year and then at the end of January send you the numbers for all of 2012? And then at the end of every month, I could send you the monthly stats for all data sets.
Is there any reason we cannot have a separate blog post once all November data is in?I would include the prior year anomaly, prior year overall rank, and the warmest year with anomaly.
I have been doing the “warmest year with anomaly” along with the warmest month. However it would be no problem adding the other two items.
Did you want me to add the information for 5 data sources such as:
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
My source for this information is http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.phpbut recommend that you email paul at woodfortrees.com, as I am sure that he would welcome the heads up and he might be able to readily fix the WTI.
I tried to do that a month or two ago and just got an automatic reply but no results.
If you want biographical information:
I was working on my metallurgical engineering degree using a slide rule when the first men landed on the moon. I love playing with new toys such as the WFT graphs. I retired last year after teaching high school physics and/or chemistry for 39 years.

@kwinterkorn:
Especially given the “Polar See-Saw” that causes a long cycle oscillation between the two poles…https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/d-o-ride-my-see-saw-mr-bond/
D.O, events and Heinrich Events have such a process, with alternating warming / cooling of opposite poles. It looks like it is related to changes of the thermohaline rate.
@Whoever it was did a ‘drive by’ on “arctic melt with no warming”:
At the Heartland conference in Chicago a presentation was made (somewhat as a ‘bonus’ and not on the schedule) of an image / movie of ocean temperature patterns over time in the Pacific. It showed that temperatures start at the equator and slowly spread upward toward Alaska. It takes about 18 years (IIRC) for the water to reach the Arctic. So the Arctic melt NOW is from the warming in 1994, roughly. So you have about 3 or 4 more years max before it gets very cold… and lots of ice returns. Given that the ocean temp map presently shows the oceans lacking excess heat, it might be closer than that… There’s also an AMO temp cycle lag time that IIRC is shorter.
Basically, it takes a while after the burner is shut off (in the equatorial heat gain zone) for the water in the water heater to run out in the shower…. (arctic heat loss zone).

Martin van Etten says: December 28, 2012 at 4:34 am
========================
I truly do not understand your claim that “every NSIDC graph shows a continuing decline in sea ice extent”. Manifestly, the graph shows the opposite with respect to recent years. The Year 2007 shows the record minimum with every year (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) since then above that, except for this year, which minimum extent surpassed 2007 but this was due to the extraordinary storm of August, and not to any warming factor. The NSIDC graph confirms the equilibrium principle I gave above.
This equilibrium could shift if the influx of Gulf Stream warmth into the Arctic Sea altered, but this could go either way. The essential point is that Arctic warming is due to warmer SST and especially Gulf Stream derived warmth. The greenhouse effect is of little consequence in determining sea ice extent.
You introduced the question of ice volume, a metric different from extent. I did not address volume in my post. The volume reduction is due in part to melt, but in part to evacuation of multi-year ice southward along the eastern Greenland coast. I do not know how separate metrics can be obtained for these two processes, or how much volume reduction is attributable solely to melt.
Concerning winter sea ice extent this year, when this winter is over we will have a basis for comparison, but not yet. regards, mpainter

Martin van Etten says: December 27, 2012 at 6:11 pmI asked how come there is arctic melt, while there is no warming
Further to your question, I just came across another reference, the “Impact of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) on Arctic Surface Air Temperature and Sea Ice Variability” Salil Mahajan, Rong Zhang and Thomas L. Delworth, 2011:http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4002.1

The simulated impact of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) on the low-frequency variability of the Arctic surface air temperature (SAT) and sea ice extent is studied with a 1000-year-long segment of a control simulation of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Climate Model version 2.1. The simulated AMOC variations in the control simulation are found to be significantly anticorrelated with the Arctic sea ice extent anomalies and significantly correlated with the Arctic SAT anomalies on decadal time scales in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic. The maximum anticorrelation with the Arctic sea ice extent and the maximum correlation with the Arctic SAT occur when the AMOC index leads by one year. An intensification of the AMOC is associated with a sea ice decline in the Labrador, Greenland, and Barents Seas in the control simulation, with the largest change occurring in winter. The recent declining trend in the satellite-observed sea ice extent also shows a similar pattern in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic in the winter, suggesting the possibility of a role of the AMOC in the recent Arctic sea ice decline

“Increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases have driven Arctic and global average warming; however, the underlying causes of Arctic amplification remain uncertain. The roles of reductions in snow and sea ice cover and changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation cloud cover and water vapour are still matters of debate.” before claiming that, “Here we show that the Arctic warming is strongest at the surface during most of the year and is primarily consistent with reductions in sea ice cover.”

“The underlying causes of this temperature amplification remain uncertain. The reduction in snow and ice cover that has occurred over recent decades may have played a role. Climate model experiments indicate that when global temperature rises, Arctic snow and ice cover retreats, causing excessive polar warming9, 10, 11. Reduction of the snow and ice cover causes albedo changes, and increased refreezing of sea ice during the cold season and decreases in sea-ice thickness both increase heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere. Changes in oceanic and atmospheric circulation, as well as cloud cover, have also been proposed to cause Arctic temperature amplification. Here we examine the vertical structure of temperature change in the Arctic during the late twentieth century using reanalysis data. We find evidence for temperature amplification well above the surface. Snow and ice feedbacks cannot be the main cause of the warming aloft during the greater part of the year, because these feedbacks are expected to primarily affect temperatures in the lowermost part of the atmosphere, resulting in a pattern of warming that we only observe in spring. A significant proportion of the observed temperature amplification must therefore be explained by mechanisms that induce warming above the lowermost part of the atmosphere. We regress the Arctic temperature field on the atmospheric energy transport into the Arctic and find that, in the summer half-year, a significant proportion of the vertical structure of warming can be explained by changes in this variable. We conclude that changes in atmospheric heat transport may be an important cause of the recent Arctic temperature amplification.”

“Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.

Meh. Storm or no storm the ice still set a record low. The storm obviously contributed to the low ice but clearly isn’t the whole story; it is at most part of the mechanism but not the cause. Climatewise I think you’d have to be pretty hard headed not to admit that something has changed in the Arctic over the past decade that bears close watching.
The trouble is we really don’t have a long enough baseline of data to understand how unusual what we are seeing up there at the moment really is. What was ice doing in the warm 1930’s? What was it like in the MWP. We have tantalising hints that there may have been periods with a lot less ice up there, but no real hard historical data. Except we mustn’t forget that Greenland was settled once and even now it is still far too cold in Greenland to permit that again. It would therefore seem to me that there is no cause yet for alarm. It has clearly been warmer at least in Greenland (and by inference quite likely also in the Arctic) in the past than it is right now.
What are the likely effects of low ice in the Arctic? Any signs of danger? Not that I can see. Perhaps more heat radiated to space from the exposed ocean in early winter. Perhaps more winter precipitation in the Northern hemisphere (harsher winters – more sunlight reflected back to space). These seem to be negative feedbacks not positive ones. No sign of a tipping point. Methane bears watching but temperatures are well below what would be needed for methane release. At the moment there seems to be no danger of it getting warm enough in the places where the methane is to cause a problem.
So … interesting. But no cause for alarm. And no reason to believe that what we are seeing up there is beyond the realm of natural variation and has not happened many times before. On the other hand the observed recent decline in arctic ice is pretty much the only prediction of the climate change enthusiasts that seems to be working out for them. So I expect them to try to make the most of it.

Werner Brozek says: December 28, 2012 at 9:17 pmThank you for your reply.
Thank you for your contributionsI will work on the things you mentioned and send everything to this site and let you decide how to present it. But just a few questions and comments for now.
Sure.“We should probably wait until all the data is in before publishing, i.e. do a update using using full year 2012 for all data sets and we can figure it out from there.
I have no problem with that, however I have been sending this information to Dr. Spencer’s site and the WUWT site as soon as the UAH monthly anomaly is in. As you know, UAH may come out on the third day of the month and right now, December 28, hadsst2 is still not out for November! As you may know, whenever someone asks about things, I often just give the latest, whether it is the monthly rank or the longest time the slope is 0. Virtually no one looks at a site 25 days after it first comes out. So would it be OK if on January 4.
Yes, this is fine. Now that I think about it, the first version of this article would probably be better as a crowdsourcing exercise e.g.;http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/23/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-extreme-weather-reference-page/
such that we can post it for review, comment and challenge, in order to refine and polish it. Will you be available to respond to comments on Sunday Jan 6th if I can post it then?I just do what I have been doing this past year and then at the end of January send you the numbers for all of 2012? And then at the end of every month, I could send you the monthly stats for all data sets.
Yes, that’s good, once we have full year 2012 data we can do another article later January or early Feb.Is there any reason we cannot have a separate blog post once all November data is in?
No, I was figuring that all of the full-year data would be available earlier, I am used to the UAH and RSS schedule. What the hell is going on over at the Met Office Hadley Center? For some reason their website still shows October’s anomaly:http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst2/
Perhaps they are still in shock over the recent aborted El Nino;http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
that must be dragging down HadSST2;http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadSST2%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
just like it’s doing to NCDC;http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20SST%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
and UAH MSU:http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20SST%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif“I would include the prior year anomaly, prior year overall rank, and the warmest year with anomaly.
I have been doing the “warmest year with anomaly” along with the warmest month. However it would be no problem adding the other two items.
Did you want me to add the information for 5 data sources such as:
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
Can you just build out a summary for one data source, then I will add the images and some explanatory text, and we can see what it looks like in an article? Once we see it laid out we can determine which data elements add the most value and we can do the same set for the rest. Perhaps we can build out RSS to include a full analysis and then see how it reads? We want it to be informative and balanced, but not overwhelming. Also, in terms of options and explanatory detail, I would go overboard, in order minimize the possibility of cherry picking accusations and reader confusion, intentional or otherwise.My source for this information is http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
That worries me, I do not consider sks to be a credible information source. Can you use WFT or another source to validate sks’ data?I tried to do that a month or two ago and just got an automatic reply but no results.
We might have to donate a few bucks to get his attention:http://www.justgiving.com/WFTIf you want biographical information:
I was working on my metallurgical engineering degree using a slide rule when the first men landed on the moon. I love playing with new toys such as the WFT graphs. I retired last year after teaching high school physics and/or chemistry for 39 years.
Yep, I’ll include it at the bottom, though I might flip it into the third person if you are ok with it, e.g.
Werner Brozek was working on his metallurgical engineering degree using a slide rule when the first men landed on the moon. Now he enjoys playing with new toys such as the WFT graphs. Werner retired in 2011 after teaching high school physics and chemistry for 39 years.

“However, the question of how on one end of the Earth are communicated to the other side still remains. Winds and currents undoubtedly play a role, but computer models of these have so far failed to really explain how the seesaw works.”

I would add polar vorticity to the mix, and suggest that the See-Saw is an important area for us to better understand. The Cosmos article also states that;

“another possible application of their [Jose Rial and Jeseung Oh] idea is the phenomenon of ‘oscillation death’: if the coupling between two pendulums becomes too strong, the same mathematics that describe synchronisation predict that the two oscillators, who are after all not quite the same, will start to impede each other’s swings and come to a stop.
Rial and Oh speculated that this is what sometimes happens on Earth as well – and may even give rise to the interglacial warm periods on Earth – such as the one mankind has enjoyed for the past 12,500 years.

Peak Warming Man says: December 29, 2012 at 12:01 amMate, it’s melting, you can look for all the obtuse reasons you want but it doesen’t matter how you cut it the truth is it’s melting, get used to it.
Yep, it’s likely a natural fluctuation in an incredibly complex system, with a minor anthropogenic element. As you say, we should just get used to it. The climate will continue fluctuating, regardless of what we do.

Peak Warming Man says: December 29, 2012 at 12:01 am
Mate, it’s melting, you can look for all the obtuse reasons you want but it doesen’t matter how you cut it the truth is it’s melting, get used to it.
============================
What do think of your fellow warmist Parncutts? Do you agree with the statement that Australian warmists are the most rabid of the species?

justthefactswuwt says: December 29, 2012 at 1:20 am
Yep, it’s likely a natural fluctuation in an incredibly complex system, with a minor anthropogenic element. As you say, we should just get used to it. The climate will continue fluctuating, regardless of what we do.
==================================
Ice accumulation and ablation in the Arctic is entirely natural and this process responds to trends of warmth and cooling, as recorded in past arctic surveys. This fluctuation is due mainly to SST, more specifically the influx of warmth via the Gulf Stream, this varying decadally. Presently this influx is at a high stage, but should subside with cooling of SST worldwide. No evidential support can be given to the notion that the increased melt is due to AGW, hence no attribution should be referred to this dubious theory.

Joel Shore says:
December 27, 2012 at 8:05 am
***Where are you getting the data to support this from? The data presented here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral/ certainly doesn’t show that.***
What Joel and Grant Foster fail to indicate is that the graph that he shows above is a PATCHED estimate of the years prior to 1979 satellite data. The authors indicated that the graph should be used with caution while Joel accepts it as law. Sort of reminds us of the Mann patching temperatures to proxies
***As for the general gist of this post: Of course, in a record low sea ice year, there is likely to be a proximate cause as to why this particular year the sea ice got particularly low. That doesn’t negate the fact that the sea ice decline caused by AGW is also to blame any more than an all-time record high temperature in July in Rochester would negate the importance of the seasonal cycle’s contribution even though one would surely be able to identify a weather pattern that contributed to making that particular day particularly hot.***
Joel has yet to prove that AGW is a significant contributor to ice melt. As well the Tamino article fails to deal with the fact that the total world ice is not declining.

Gerald Machnee says: December 29, 2012 at 9:17 am
“The authors indicated that the graph should be used with caution while Joel accepts it as law. Sort of reminds us of the Mann patching temperatures to proxies”
“Joel has yet to prove that AGW is a significant contributor to ice melt. As well the Tamino article fails to deal with the fact that the total world ice is not declining.”
======================================
It is what we have come to expect from “climate scientists”.
Joel cannot prove AGW because the theory cannot be proven. It is a house of cards that collapses at a poke.

mpainter says: December 29, 2012 at 6:44 amIce accumulation and ablation in the Arctic is entirely natural and this process responds to trends of warmth and cooling, as recorded in past arctic surveys. This fluctuation is due mainly to SST, more specifically the influx of warmth via the Gulf Stream, this varying decadally. Presently this influx is at a high stage, but should subside with cooling of SST worldwide.
That’s a pretty absolute statement, in regards to a subject that we have a rudimentary understanding of and our measurement record is laughably brief.No evidential support can be given to the notion that the increased melt is due to AGW, hence no attribution should be referred to this dubious theory.
Note that I did not refer to AGW, aka Anthropogenic CO2 warming, rather I refer to minor anthropogenic elements, which might also include:
Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report;http://www.pame.is/images/stories/PDF_Files/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print.pdf
Page 4;

“There were approximately 6,000 individual vessels, many making multiple voyages, in the Arctic region during the AMSA survey year; half of these were operating on the Great Circle Route in the North Pacific that crosses the Aleutian Islands. Of the 6,000 vessels reported, approximately 1,600 were fishing vessels.”

Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report Pages 141 – 142;

“The AMSA has developed the world’s first activity-based estimate of Arctic marine shipping emissions using empirical data for shipping reported by Arctic Council member states. Emissions were calculated for each vessel-trip for which data was available for the base year 2004. The 515,000 trips analyzed represent about 14.2 million km of distance traveled (or 7.7 million nautical miles) by transport vessels; fishing vessels represent over 15,000 fishing vessel days at sea for 2004. Some results could be an underestimation of current emissions, given potential underreporting bias and anecdotal reports of recent growth in international shipping and trade through the Arctic.”

Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report on Page 79;

“A specific example of where cruise ship traffic is increasing at a rapid rate is off the coast of Greenland. As Table 5.3 shows, cruise ship visits and the number of passengers visiting Greenland has increased significantly between 2003 and 2008. For example, between 2006 and 2007, port calls into Greenland increased from 157 to 222 cruise ships. The number of port calls in 2006 combined for a total of 22,051 passengers, a number that represents nearly half of Greenland’s total 2006 population of 56,901.
“In 2008, approximately 375 cruise ship port calls were scheduled for Greenland ports and harbors, more than double the number of port calls seen in 2006.”

Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report Page 137;

“The 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reported that, while at sea, the average cruise-ship passenger generates about eight gallons of sewage per day and an average cruise ship can generate a total of 532,000 to 798,000 liters of sewage and 3.8 million liters of wastewater from sinks, showers and laundries each week, as well as large amounts of solid waste (garbage). The average cruise ship will also produce more than 95,000 liters of oily bilge water from engines and machinery a week. Sewage, solid waste and oily bilge water release are regulated through MARPOL. There are no restrictions on the release of treated wastewater.”

Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report Page 84;

“During 2004-2008, there were 33 icebreaker transits to the North Pole for science and tourism. An increasing number of icebreakers and research vessels are conducting geological and geophysical research throughout the central Arctic Ocean related to establishing the limits of the extended continental shelf under UNCLOS.”

Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report Page 84;

“Map 5.6 demonstrates the surge in vessel activity in the summer season, when all of the community re-supply takes place and most bulk commodities are shipped out and supplies brought in for commercial operations. Summer is also the season when all of the passenger and cruise vessels travel to the region.”

Also, the Ajurak Icebreaker trials in the Fram Strait in 2009 could have helped facilitate transport a bit, i.e.:

“Icebreaker and ice-management trials on behalf of ExxonMobil in connection with the Ajurak project. In this research expedition during September 2009 Icebreaker Oden (TransAtlantic management) and Icebreaker Fennica was performing various tests for ExxonMobil.”http://www.rabt.se/Offshoreicebreaking/Reference-list/

Regional climate change can arise from three different effects: regional changes to the amount of radiative heating that reaches the Earth’s surface, an inhomogeneous response to globally uniform changes in radiative heating and variability without a specific forcing. The relative importance of these effects is not clear, particularly because neither the response to regional forcings nor the regional forcings themselves are well known for the twentieth century. Here we investigate the sensitivity of regional climate to changes in carbon dioxide, black carbon aerosols, sulphate aerosols and ozone in the tropics, mid-latitudes and polar regions, using a coupled ocean-atmosphere model. We find that mid- and high-latitude climate is quite sensitive to the location of the forcing. Using these relationships between forcing and response along with observations of twentieth century climate change, we reconstruct radiative forcing from aerosols in space and time. Our reconstructions broadly agree with historical emissions estimates, and can explain the differences between observed changes in Arctic temperatures and expectations from non-aerosol forcings plus unforced variability. We conclude that decreasing concentrations of sulphate aerosols and increasing concentrations of black carbon have substantially contributed to rapid Arctic warming during the past three decades.http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sh02500l.html

“Jacobson found that eliminating soot produced by the burning of fossil fuel and solid biofuel could reduce warming above parts of the Arctic Circle in the next fifteen years by up to 1.7 degrees Celsius (3 degrees Fahrenheit). For perspective, net warming in the Arctic has been at least 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) over the last century and is expected to warm significantly more in the future if nothing is done.” http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2010/2010-20.shtml

Abstract. This paper presents 5 km×5 km Arctic emissions inventories of important greenhouse gases, black carbon and other pollutants under existing and future (2050) scenarios that account for growth of shipping in the region, potential diversion traffic through emerging routes, and possible emissions control measures. These high-resolution, geospatial emissions inventories for shipping can be used to evaluate Arctic climate sensitivity to black carbon (a short-lived climate forcing pollutant especially effective in accelerating the melting of ice and snow), aerosols, and gaseous emissions including carbon dioxide. We quantify ship emissions scenarios which are expected to increase as declining sea ice coverage due to climate change allows for increased shipping activity in the Arctic. A first-order calculation of global warming potential due to 2030 emissions in the high-growth scenario suggests that short-lived forcing of ~4.5 gigagrams of black carbon from Arctic shipping may increase global warming potential due to Arctic ships’ CO2 emissions (~42 000 gigagrams) by some 17% to 78%.http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/9689/2010/acp-10-9689-2010.html

“Black carbon emissions from ships operating in the Arctic may have
regional impacts by accelerating ice melt.”

Page 142

Black carbon is a component of particulate matter produced by marine vessels through the incomplete oxidation of diesel fuel. The release and deposition of BC in the Arctic region is of particular concern because of the effect it has on reducing the albedo (reflectivity) of sea ice and snow. When solar radiation is applied, reduced albedo increases the rate of ice and snow melt significantly, resulting in more open water, and thereby reducing the regional albedo further. In the Arctic region in 2004, approximately 1,180 metric tons of black carbon was released, representing a small proportion of the estimated 71,000 to 160,000 metric tons released around the globe annually. However, the region-specific effects of black carbon indicate that even small amounts could have a potentially disproportionate impact on ice melt and warming in the region. More research is needed to determine the level of impact this could have on ice melt acceleration in the Arctic and the potential benefits from limiting ships’ BC emissions when operating near to or in ice-covered regions. The potential impacts of black carbon should also be a point of consideration when weighing the costs and benefits of using in-situ burning of oil in spill response situations.”

And China has definitely increased their Coal Usage and Black Carbon emissions:

“Today, the majority of black carbon emissions are from developing countries[27] and this trend is expected to increase.[28] The largest sources of black carbon are Asia, Latin America, and Africa.[29] China and India together account for 25-35% of global black carbon emissions[30] Black carbon emissions from China doubled from 2000 to 2006.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon

As such, it seems likely that Soot/Black Carbon, including increasing emissions for China’s coal fired power plants, have some impact on Arctic sea ice.
Taken in total, I think that combination of the, still debated, warming influence on global temperatures associated with anthropogenic CO2, along with the influences of Ship Traffic and Soot/Black Carbon, provide “evidential support” for a “minor anthropogenic element” to changes in Arctic sea ice.

justthefactswuwt says:
December 29, 2012 at 11:17 am
mpainter says: December 29, 2012 at 6:44 am
Ice accumulation and ablation in the Arctic is entirely natural and this process responds to trends of warmth and cooling, as recorded in past arctic surveys. This fluctuation is due mainly to SST, more specifically the influx of warmth via the Gulf Stream, this varying decadally. Presently this influx is at a high stage, but should subside with cooling of SST worldwide.
“That’s a pretty absolute statement, in regards to a subject that we have a rudimentary understanding of and our measurement record is laughably brief.”
mpainter:
No evidential support can be given to the notion that the increased melt is due to AGW, hence no attribution should be referred to this dubious theory.
“Note that I did not refer to AGW, aka Anthropogenic CO2 warming, rather I refer to minor anthropogenic elements, which might also include:”
======================================
Glad to have your response.
It should not be a puzzler that natural processes determine oceanic climate. Previous periods of warming brought Arctic ice ablation and this is well and reliably reported, and Gulf Stream warmth is the obvious source. When the warming trends altered to cooling, ice accumulation proceeded, very well explained by reduced influx of Gulf Stream warmth. We have higher SST than thirty years ago and altered Arctic circulation, ergo ice ablation replaces ice accumulation, as before. This will reverse when SST cools, as before, anthropogenic factors notwithstanding. Lack of metrics should not be a stumbling block for understanding natural processes. No need to complicate things, see Ockham.
It seems that we agree on AGW. mpainter

justthefactswuwt says:
December 29, 2012 at 12:35 amYes, this is fine. Now that I think about it, the first version of this article would probably be better as a crowdsourcing exercise e.g.;http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/23/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-extreme-weather-reference-page/
such that we can post it for review, comment and challenge, in order to refine and polish it. Will you be available to respond to comments on Sunday Jan 6th if I can post it then?
Yes, I will be available, but from 2:00 P.M. To 10:00 PM Alberta, Canada time.Can you just build out a summary for one data source, then I will add the images and some explanatory text, and we can see what it looks like in an article?
Immediately following this post, I will post two more things.
The first is where I have used my present format but with more explanation as requested.
The second is with an introduction and then just RSS for now. If you like the second format better, I can finish it off this way for the other data sets.My source for this information is http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
That worries me, I do not consider sks to be a credible information source. Can you use WFT or another source to validate sks’ data?
WFT only has the 95% information for BEST. I do not know of any other source. I understand your concern, but the numbers seem fine to me. For example, even by their numbers, RSS has 23 years of no significant warming. And from 1997, their numbers give -0.003 +/-…, whereas WFT gives -0.00041125 per year or -0.004/decade. That is the only thing I can check, namely the trend and not the 95% level. However we can leave this part out if you wish.Yep, I’ll include it at the bottom, though I might flip it into the third person if you are ok with it, e.g.
No problem!

2012 in Perspective so far on Six Data Sets
This post has three parts for a number of data sets:
1. Here I give the ranking of various data sets assuming the present ranking stays that way for the rest of the year.
2. Here I give the longest time the slope is flat for a number of data sets.
3. Here I give the longest time for which the warming is NOT significant at the 95% level.
1. Below, I am giving the latest monthly anomalies in order from January on. The bolded one is the highest for the year so far. I am treating all months equally and adding all anomalies and then dividing by the total number of months. This should not make a difference to the relative ranking at the end of the year unless there is a virtual tie between two years. After I give the average anomaly so far, I say where the year would rank if the anomaly were to stay that way for the rest of the year. I also show the warmest year on each data set along with the warmest month ever recorded on each data set. Then I show the previous year’s anomaly and rank.
The 2011 rankings for GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and Hadcrut4 can either be found at Lubos Motl’s site. Either go to http://motls.blogspot.ca/#uds-search-results
Alternatively, they can be deduced at the following respectively:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txthttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txthttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txthttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.1.1.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
The present rankings for UAH were calculated from the revised data due to the new version 5.5. This data can be found at the WFT site.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found at http://motls.blogspot.ca/2012/01/rss-amsu-2011-was-12th-warmest-year-out.html
With the UAH anomaly for November at 0.281, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.281)/11 = 0.156. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.132 and it will come in 10th assuming 2012 comes in 9th.
With the GISS anomaly for November at 0.68, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.62 + 0.68 + 0.68)/11 = 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.514 and it will come in 10th assuming 2012 comes in 9th or warmer.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for November at 0.480, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.473 + 0.477 + 0.445 + 0.512+ 0.514 + 0.491 + 0.480)/11 = 0.417. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.The anomaly in 2011 was 0.340 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadsst2 anomaly for October at 0.428, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.428)/10 = 0.336. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.273 and it will come in 13th.
With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for November at 0.512, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.288 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.525 + 0.531 + 0.506 + 0.470 + 0.532 + 0.515 + 0.524 + 0.512)/11 = 0.45. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399 and it will come in 13th.
If you would like to see the above month to month changes illustrated graphically, see:http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2012/plot/gistemp/from:2012/plot/uah/from:2012/plot/rss/from:2012/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2012
2. For the part below, I went from the latest date that data is available on WFT to the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, I give the time from October so no one can accuse me of being less than honest if I say the slope is flat from a certain month.On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 2 months to 15 years and 11 months.
1. UAH: since October 2004 or 8 years, 2 months (goes to November)
2. GISS: since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to November)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November)RSS is 191/204 or 94% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or an even 12 years (goes to November.)
See the graph below to show it all.http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend
3. For the part below, I went to the following site and determined the longest time that the slope is less than the 95% uncertainty range for various data sets. This indicates for how long the warming is not significant at the 95% level. http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

OOPS! Sorry about all the bold above!
Alternate set up
This post has three parts for a number of data sets:
1. Below, I am giving the latest monthly anomalies in order from January on. The bolded one is the highest for the year so far. I am treating all months equally and adding all anomalies and then dividing by the total number of months. This should not make a difference to the relative ranking at the end of the year unless there is a virtual tie between two years. After I give the average anomaly so far, I say where the year would rank if the anomaly were to stay that way for the rest of the year. I also show the warmest year on each data set along with the warmest month ever recorded on each data set. Then I show the previous year’s anomaly and rank.
2. For the part below, I went from the latest date that data is available on WFT to the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, I give the time from October so no one can accuse me of being less than honest if I say the slope is flat from a certain month.
3. For the part below, I went to the following site and determined the longest time that the slope is less than the 95% uncertainty range for various data sets. This indicates for how long the warming is not significant at the 95% level. http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
RSS
1. With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found at http://motls.blogspot.ca/2012/01/rss-amsu-2011-was-12th-warmest-year-out.html
2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November). See:http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
3. For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Put in 1990 for the start date; put in 2013 for the end date; click the RSS button; then calculate.
UAH
1.

@ justthefactswuwt
as I said, I was missing the temperature aspect in the story this thread did begin with;
I assumed that everybody agrees on the fact that since the end of the little ice age the avarage temperature rose maybe about 1 degree Celcius, about half of it in the last part of the 20th century;
I also assumed that everybody here agrees on the fact that the rise of the average temperature has halted since 1998, and that most of the top ten warmest years since the little ice age were in the first decennium of the 21 st century;
if you can follow me so far I think it is improper language to state – as Monckton and some others did and do – that warming has stopped;
proper would be to say that the increase of warming has stopped (for the time being);
warming as such hasn’t stopped, the whole first decennium of this century has been about a half degree warmer than the average temperature in the fifties and sixties of the former century and even a full degree warmer since the little ice age;
taken that in account, higher sea surface temperatures, must play a role in the melting of sea ice,
thanks for all your kind and interesting remarks;
a most enlightened 2013, indeed!

Martin van Etten says:
“I also assumed that everybody here agrees on the fact that the rise of the average temperature has halted since 1998, and that most of the top ten warmest years since the little ice age were in the first decennium of the 21st century… the increase of warming has stopped… [but] warming as such hasn’t stopped”
A distinction without a difference. For the time being at least, global warming has stalled. Warming may resume. Or not. But the fact is that despite the steady rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, the upward trend in global warming has stopped.
The cessation of the long term global warming trend is causing no end of consternation among the alarmist crowd. It is amusing to observe their desperate attempts to explain it away.

Martin van Etten says:
December 29, 2012 at 4:59 pm
I also assumed that everybody here agrees on the fact that the rise of the average temperature has halted since 1998, and that most of the top ten warmest years since the little ice age were in the first decennium of the 21 st century;
if you can follow me so far I think it is improper language to state – as Monckton and some others did and do – that warming has stopped;
proper would be to say that the increase of warming has stopped (for the time being);
warming as such hasn’t stopped, the whole first decennium of this century has been about a half degree warmer than the average temperature in the fifties and sixties of the former century and even a full degree warmer since the little ice age;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not sure about that.
Three pieces of additional data.
1. We know the temperature data sets have been ‘adjusted’ Example
2. An alternate piece of climate information does not show very much warming (zoom on bottom graph)graph explanation of graph link
3. length of the Arctic melt season is getting shorter graph and the Northern Hemisphere snow season is starting earlier link
This winter is already seeing record cold and record snow See link (My old home town just got plastered with record snow)

@ boehm @ Gail Combs
halted, stopped, stalled…, whats in a name…,
at least, I guess, increase has stalled temporarily;
compared to fifties and sixties there is now continuous warming of 0,5 degree celcius average according to all kind of temp series, incl hadcrut;
according to simple physics, there must be influence on the melting of ice;
so far I have noticed that Lord Moncton uses the same Hadcrut 3&4 to make his points: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/18-annual-climate-gabfests-16-years-without-warming/
adjusted?, ask Lord Monckton and Werner Brozek;

As S.W. sez, storm intensity correlates with cooling climate. And heat distributed into the high latitudes departs the planet at accelerated speed. So such Arctic storms have an unfortunate capacity to serve as a form of positive feedback. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

One hears from very many very influential people that 2012 was warmest year ever, and the chilling Halloween Frankenstorm Sandy was due to “weirding” (their now all inclusive W in AGW), thus making it even more urgent they see that CO2 gets stopped at any cost (to whoever can pay for it) and it has to be made better; so this won’t happen again.
The problem this presents to me, is that to them, we are the ones who can pay for it, and we are also the ones who need to fix and improve it; and there doesn’t appear to be anything weird about global weather, anyway.
I sense there is not only a lack of understanding of the difference between temperature and heat, and the rolls played in heat transfer by mass transport and changes of state; but also a lack of understanding of expected behavior of the masses to actions of the State.

Joel cannot prove AGW because the theory cannot be proven. It is a house of cards that collapses at a poke.

You are right that AGW can’t be proven, but wrong on the reason: Nothing in science can be proven, since science is inductive. In mathematics, based on deductive reasoning from given premises, things can be proven. Hence, someone asking for proof of AGW is asking the impossible, just like someone asking for proof of evolution. Hence the desire of anti-science forces everywhere to ask for proof.

Joel Shore say: December 30, 2012 at 4:11 pm
mpainter says:
“Joel cannot prove AGW because the theory cannot be proven. It is a house of cards that collapses at a poke.”
**********************************************
You are right that AGW can’t be proven, but wrong on the reason: Nothing in science can be proven, since science is inductive. In mathematics, based on deductive reasoning from given premises, things can be proven. Hence, someone asking for proof of AGW is asking the impossible, just like someone asking for proof of evolution. Hence the desire of anti-science forces everywhere to ask for proof.
======================================================
“anti-science forces everywhere” that “ask for proof” —— thus Joel Shore.

Martin van Etten says: December 29, 2012 at 4:59 pmI assumed that everybody agrees on the fact that since the end of the little ice age the avarage temperature rose maybe about 1 degree Celcius, about half of it in the last part of the 20th century;
While there appears to be broad agreement that Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age, the amount of warming and when it occurred are still a matter of debate, i.e.:
According to Peck et. al;http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/arcticbg.gif

“Together, they indicate that the Arctic has warmed up to 1.5°C since 1850 – the coolest interval of the Arctic “Little Ice Age.” Much of the recent Arctic warming took place between 1850 and 1920, most likely due to natural processes”http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/overpeck.html

justthefactswuwt says: December 30, 2012 at 9:09 pm
We still have the cart horse issue, i.e. “did increased sea temperature cause a decrease in sea ice, did a decrease in sea ice cause an increase in sea temperature, or both?” and then there are the attribution questions of how much of the increase in sea temperature was associated with increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and what role this portion of the increase in sea temperature has on sea ice. However, I cannot refute the possibility that it plays minor role in the melting of Arctic sea ice.
=============================================
“did increased sea temperature cause a decrease in sea ice” : Horse in front of the cart
“did a decrease in sea ice cause an increase in sea temperature”: Horse behind the cart
Of course, as ice recedes, insolation plays a role, adding to SST. But warm water influx into the polar sea is the primary factor in season’s end ice extent.
GHE makes no contribution to SST because water is opaque to IR. See absorbency spectrum of water. This is the earth-size hole in AGW. Water covers 71% of the earth and SST is primary factor in determining climate and SST is independent of the GHE.

Werner Brozek says: December 29, 2012 at 2:00, 2:01 and 2:02 pmYes, I will be available, but from 2:00 P.M. To 10:00 PM Alberta, Canada time.
I schedule it to post at 2:00 P.M. Alberta/Mountain timeImmediately following this post, I will post two more things.
Incredible stuff, I can definitely synthesis that into a compelling an article. I draft something and post a link to a private sample article later on Tuesday. We can then hone it and an incorporate whatever updated data becomes available, through Sunday to prep it for publishing.The first is where I have used my present format but with more explanation as requested.
I think I like the first variant better, the only thing I would change is the order of the three elements. Years without warming is getting a lot of attention, so I would lead with that, i.e). 2, 3, 1.
I also plan to incorporate sections 2 and 3 into the next Big Picture “Earth’s Temperature” update e.g.;http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-peter-gleick-edition/
and will credit you accordingly.The second is with an introduction and then just RSS for now. If you like the second format
I am thinking of including the RSS overview at the bottom of the crowdsourcing article and using it as a vehicle to see if people prefer that format and to ask if there are any additional data points or analyses that people think make be interesting or worthwhile.better, I can finish it off this way for the other data sets.
I’d hold off until we crowdsource it, to see if readers find it valuable.My source for this information is http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
That worries me, I do not consider sks to be a credible information source. Can you use WFT or another source to validate sks’ data?
WFT only has the 95% information for BEST. I do not know of any other source. I understand your concern, but the numbers seem fine to me. For example, even by their numbers, RSS has 23 years of no significant warming. And from 1997, their numbers give -0.003 +/-…, whereas WFT gives -0.00041125 per year or -0.004/decade. That is the only thing I can check, namely the trend and not the 95% level. However we can leave this part out if you wish.
I am inclined to include it in the crowdsourcing exercise, but also to call extra attention to it. Maybe somebody knows of another more reliable source, or we can spur someone to create one.

No…It is 16 years of warming for which the warming is not statistically-significant at the 95% level. However, the warming is also not different from the long-term (since mid 1970s) warming trend of ~0.17 C per decade at the 95% level either. [And, of course, that is with cherry-picking a start date that puts 1998 right near the beginning of the record. That matters because 1998 was the super El Nino that resulted in temperatures that not only broke all previous yearly records in the instrumental record but utterly smashed them by some 0.15 C. This is why a graph of the linear trend from 1975 to mid-1997 and one from 1975 to now looks like this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.5/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend , showing that the post-1997 data continues to lay on about the same trendline as the data from 1975 to 1997 lay on.]

What Joel and Grant Foster fail to indicate is that the graph that he shows above is a PATCHED estimate of the years prior to 1979 satellite data. The authors indicated that the graph should be used with caution while Joel accepts it as law.

Actually, tamino shows reconstructions of data from two different sources. And, what the one source (Walsh and Chapman http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/guide/Data/walsh.html ) does say about using caution with regard to the data is more limited in time period than what you have implied: “Please note that large portions of the pre-1953, and almost all of the pre-1900 data is either climatology or interpolated data and the user is cautioned to use this data with care (see “Expert user guidance”, below).”

Joel has yet to prove that AGW is a significant contributor to ice melt. As well the Tamino article fails to deal with the fact that the total world ice is not declining.

As I have noted, proving anything in science is a fool’s errand. I can’t prove that an apple will fall down the next time I drop it either. Most people don’t take that as a compelling reason to base public policy on the notion that we have no idea whether or not gravity exists.
And, tamino has dealt with world sea ice before, as in this post: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/how-fake-skeptics-fool-themselves-part-infinity-sea-ice-version/ Yes, global sea ice is also declining because the very large decrease in Arctic sea ice outbalances the statistically-significant but much smaller increase in Antarctic sea ice.

joeldshore says:
December 31, 2012 at 7:32 amD Boehm says:
Sixteen years of no global warming, and counting…
No…It is 16 years of warming for which the warming is not statistically-significant at the 95% level.
See my post at 2:01 P.M. December 29.
3. For the part below, I went to the following site and determined the longest time that the slope is less than the 95% uncertainty range for various data sets. This indicates for how long the warming is not significant at the 95% level. http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

joeldshore says: December 31, 2012 at 7:32 am
As I have noted, proving anything in science is a fool’s errand. I can’t prove that an apple will fall down the next time I drop it either.
================================================
Talk about a fool’s errand: trying to convince this over-warmed zealot that the last warming trend ended sixteen years ago. If you think to enlighten him, you labels you as anti-science, as above.
How about joeldshore, did you know that the green house effect makes no contribution to SST? This fact alone sinks your cherished AGW.

The Kirby paper says:
“The key to further progress on the cosmic ray–cloud–climate question is to understand the
nature of the physical mechanism”
I have previously proposed that changes in the mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun alter the chemistry of the upper atmosphere (principally by altering ozone amounts differentially at different levels) so as to change the vertical temperature profile differentially between equator and poles enabling latitudinal climate zone and jet stream shifting which then results in changes in global cloudiness and the amount of energy able to enter the oceans.
I am not currently aware of any more plausible mechanism having been proposed.

Werner Brozek says: December 31, 2012 at 9:42 am
Hey, please take a look at the draft article below and let me know what changes you’d like to make. Thanks.
Title: Crowdsourcing a Temperature Trend Analysis
(Image Credit: WoodForTrees.com)By Werner Brozek, edited and with introduction by WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
Your help is needed in building the a regular temperature trend analysis for WUWT. With much attention being focused on how much warming, or lack thereof, has occurred in Earth’s recent past (1, 2, 3) it seems worthwhile to establish a regular update that provided a consummate summary of the key temperature records and their associated trends. Fortunately, WUWT regular Werner Brozek has been compiling just an update and posting it in comments on WUWT and Roy Spencer’s website. As such, we would like to present and expanded version of Werner’s analysis for your input and scrutiny, before finalizing the content and form of these regular. As such, please review the following and lets us know, if it appears to be factually accurate, what you think of the layout, what you think of the content, if you think certain links should images or images should instead be graphs, any additional improvements that can be made. There are few additional specific questions included in Werner’s analysis below. Thank you for your input. JTF
—Temperature Trend Analysis
By Werner Brozek
This analysis has three section covering 6 data sets, including GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, Hadcrut4, RSS and UAH:Section 1, provides the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative.Section 2, provides the longest time for which the warming is NOT significant at the 95% level.Section 3, provides rankings of various data sets assuming the present ranking stays that way for the rest of the year.Section 1
This analysis uses the latest date that data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT) to the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, I give the time from October so no one can accuse me of being less than honest if I say the slope is flat from a certain month.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 2 months to 15 years and 11 months.
1. UAH: since October 2004 or 8 years, 2 months (goes to November)
2. GISS: since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to November)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November) RSS is 191/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or an even 12 years (goes to November.)
Here they are illustrated graphically;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
Here is an alternate graphical illustration;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
(Which of these illustrations do you prefer? Are they too cluttered to include in one graph? If so, how can we make this more user friendly?)Section 2
For this analysis data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com and it was determined what the longest time that the slope is less than the 95% uncertainty range for various data sets. This analysis indicates how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level.
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
(Note that we have concerns with using data from SkepticalScience.com, however we have not identified another source for this data. Does anyone know of a reliable alternative source where these data points can be readily accessed?Section 3
This section provides the latest monthly anomalies in order from January on. The bolded one is the highest for the year so far. I am treating all months equally and adding all anomalies and then dividing by the total number of months. This should not make a difference to the relative ranking at the end of the year unless there is a virtual tie between two years. After I give the average anomaly so far, I say where the year would rank if the anomaly were to stay that way for the rest of the year. I also show the warmest year on each data set along with the warmest month ever recorded on each data set. Then I show the previous year’s anomaly and rank.
The 2011 rankings for GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and Hadcrut4 can be deduced at the following respectively:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txthttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txthttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txthttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.1.1.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
The present rankings for UAH were calculated from the revised data due to the new version 5.5. This data can be found at the WFT site.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found here. (Others may also be found at here)
With the UAH anomaly for November at 0.281, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.281)/11 = 0.156. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.132 and it will come in 10th assuming 2012 comes in 9th.
With the GISS anomaly for November at 0.68, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.62 + 0.68 + 0.68)/11 = 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.514 and it will come in 10th assuming 2012 comes in 9th or warmer.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for November at 0.480, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.473 + 0.477 + 0.445 + 0.512+ 0.514 + 0.491 + 0.480)/11 = 0.417. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.340 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadsst2 anomaly for October at 0.428, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.428)/10 = 0.336. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.273 and it will come in 13th.
With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for November at 0.512, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.288 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.525 + 0.531 + 0.506 + 0.470 + 0.532 + 0.515 + 0.524 + 0.512)/11 = 0.45. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399 and it will come in 13th.
Here are the above month to month changes illustrated graphically;
you can recreate the graph directly here.Appendix
In addition to the layout above, we also considered providing a summary for each temperature record, as is illustrated below for RSS. Please let us know if you find this format to be adventurous/preferred as compared to the category breakout above, and also please let us know if there are any additional analyses that might be valuable to incorporate.
RSS
1. With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found at http://motls.blogspot.ca/2012/01/rss-amsu-2011-was-12th-warmest-year-out.html
2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November).
Recreate graph here.
3. For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Put in 1990 for the start date; put in 2013 for the end date; click the RSS button; then calculate.About the Author: Werner Brozek was working on his metallurgical engineering degree using a slide rule when the first men landed on the moon. Now he enjoys playing with new toys such as the WFT graphs. Werner retired in 2011 after teaching high school physics and chemistry for 39 years.
—
Please let us know your thoughts and recommendations in comments below. Thanks Werner & Just The Facts

justthefactswuwtsays:
January 1, 2013 at 6:13 pm
It looks good!Earth’s recent past (1, 2, 3) it seems worthwhile to
Is it worthwhile to find a #4 from:http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/05/clips-from-last-night-bill-nye-vs-marc-morano-on-global-warming-newt-gingrich-on-the-fiscal-cliff/
The above is very patchy so see:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/04/marc-morano-vs-bill-nye-on-cnn-tonight/
Go to the 1:18 point where Marc also mentions the 16 years of no warming.
However some things seemed to be awkwardly worded. Keep in mind my degree was in engineering and not English, so I could be wrong here, but here is how I see things.Your help is needed in building the a regular temperature…
Delete “the”As such, we would like to present and expanded version of Werner’s analysis for your input and scrutiny, before finalizing the content and form of these regular.
Change “and” to “an”. Should there be a word after “regular” such as updates or something like that?if you think certain links should images or images should instead be graphs
“if you think certain links should be? images or images should instead be graphs”Section 2
For this analysis data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com and it was determined what the longest time that the slope is less than the 95% uncertainty range for various data sets. This analysis indicates how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level.
Perhaps it is me, but the first sentence sounds awkward and repetitious with respect to the second sentence. How about just:
“For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level on various data sets.
When I sent this, I noticed the space between the RSS and the UAH data but my poor computer skills did not enable me to fix it so all spacings are the same.Section 3
This section provides the latest monthly anomalies in order from January on. The bolded one is the highest for the year so far.
Did you decide not to have all the bolding that I had in the post athttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/27/record-arctic-storm-melted-sea-ice/#comment-1185452
This is obviously a judgement call. If you decide there should be no bolding at all, then the second sentence above needs to be deleted. I am thinking that if you do not like all the bolding I had, if at least the highest anomaly for the year so far and the present ranking were bolded, then people who are in a rush would see this right away.(Others may also be found at here) Delete “at”?
You had mentioned putting this up at 2:00 P.M. Mountain time on Sunday. Hadsst2 for November still has not come out, so if the posting were to come out tomorrow, it would still be up to date, but if you wait until Sunday, then perhaps an extra month of Hadsst2, UAH and RSS could be available and things would need to be redone to be current. Of course that would not stop me from giving an update in the comments if it were posted. I am available for the next several days if you wish to post this sooner. And I can give any updates that come along below this present post so they can be incorporated if you wait until Sunday. Will the above then be a WUWT post at the usual place? Thank you for all of your work!

Hello “Just the facts”,
Since UAH for December has now come out, there would need to be a few minor tweaks to the article. Below, I will show the line in question in ital, then I will show the line in bold how it should be. Then I will explain if necessary.On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 2 months to 15 years and 11 months.On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 3 months to an even 16 years.
Since the last point for UAH is virtually right on the level slope line, we can add a month. It will definitely still start where it has, but it will go another month. As for RSS, with the negative slope it had to November, there could have been an increase of about 0.15 and it still would have made it to 16 years with December’s number. But with UAH going down 0.08, there is no way RSS is going to go up 0.15. The only question in my mind right now is whether RSS could go 16 years and 1 month, going back to December 1996, but for now, we are certainly not being careless to say it is an even 16 years to the end of December, even without knowing the exact number.1. UAH: since October 2004 or 8 years, 2 months (goes to November)1. UAH: since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months (goes to December)6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November) RSS is 191/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.6. RSS: since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December) RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
From the earlier email, if you agreeSection 2
For this analysis data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com and it was determined what the longest time that the slope is less than the 95% uncertainty range for various data sets. This analysis indicates how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level.For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level on various data sets.The present rankings for UAH were calculated from the revised data due to the new version 5.5. This data can be found at the WFT site.The latest rankings for UAH are given at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/uah-global-temperature-report-2012-was-9th-warmest/
From the earlier email if you agree(Others may also be found at here)(Others may also be found here)With the UAH anomaly for November at 0.281, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.281)/11 = 0.156. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.132 and it will come in 10th assuming 2012 comes in 9th.With the UAH anomaly for December at 0.202, the average for the twelve months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.282 + 0.202)/12 = 0.16. This would rank 9th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.130 and it will come in 10th.
2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November). 2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December). RSS is 192/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

Werner Brozek says: January 1, 2013 at 9:19 pm
All changes made below, as we as a couple responses before.Did you decide not to have all the bolding that I had in the post athttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/27/record-arctic-storm-melted-sea-ice/#comment-1185452
This is obviously a judgement call. If you decide there should be no bolding at all, then the second sentence above needs to be deleted. I am thinking that if you do not like all the bolding I had, if at least the highest anomaly for the year so far and the present ranking were bolded, then people who are in a rush would see this right away.
No, I just skipped the bolding because I wasn’t sure if anything would change/have to be updated with year-end data. I’ve added the bolding into the version below.You had mentioned putting this up at 2:00 P.M. Mountain time on Sunday. Hadsst2 for November still has not come out, so if the posting were to come out tomorrow, it would still be up to date, but if you wait until Sunday, then perhaps an extra month of Hadsst2, UAH and RSS could be available and things would need to be redone to be current. Of course that would not stop me from giving an update in the comments if it were posted.
Your call on what you want to update. I’ll be available for a bit tomorrow/Fri night and then for an hour or so before 2:00 PM MT on Sunday, so just drop any additions/replacements you’d like in this thread and I’ll incorporate them before I post it.I am available for the next several days if you wish to post this sooner. And I can give any updates that come along below this present post so they can be incorporated if you wait until Sunday.
I have essentially 3 jobs at the moment, and hike to do on Sat, so Sunday is the first day that I’ll have time to dedicate to supporting a crowdsourcing thread, and to provide argumentative support as needed. In the future, reproducing this article should be pretty turnkey, i.e. you send the article via email, thread or Submit Story and we can post it when you want.Will the above then be a WUWT post at the usual place?
Yep, it will appear on the front page, just like any other WUWT post.Thank you for all of your work!
No problem, this has gone quite smoothly and you’ve done most of the heavy lifting. Once we run through the crowdsourcing exercise, we can use that thread to tweak the format as desired and prep the article template so that you can do this essentially autonomously moving forwards.The present rankings for UAH were calculated from the revised data due to the new version 5.5. This data can be found at the WFT site.
The latest rankings for UAH are given at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/uah-global-temperature-report-2012-was-9th-warmest/
Probably better to use a permalink (versus an article/link that will need to be updated monthly) if we can, so it is more turnkey in the the future, but updated as proposed in the version below.
Revised Article (Please let me know if you’d like to make any additional mods):
(Image Credit: WoodForTrees.com)By Werner Brozek, edited and with introduction by WUWT regular “Just The Facts”
Your help is needed in building a regular temperature trend analysis for WUWT. With much attention being focused on how much warming, or lack thereof, has occurred in Earth’s recent past (1, 2, 3, 4) it seems worthwhile to establish a regular update that provided a consummate summary of the key temperature records and their associated trends. Fortunately, WUWT regular Werner Brozek has been compiling just such an update and posting it in comments on WUWT and Roy Spencer’s website. As such, we would like to present an expanded version of Werner’s analysis for your input and scrutiny, before finalizing the content and form of these regular updates. As such, please review the following and lets us know, if it appears to be factually accurate, what you think of the layout, what you think of the content, if you think certain links should be images or images should instead be links, any additional improvements that can be made. There are few additional specific questions included in Werner’s analysis below. Thank you for your input. JTF
—Temperature Trend Analysis
By Werner Brozek
This analysis has three section covering 6 data sets, including GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, Hadcrut4, RSS and UAH:Section 1, provides the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative.Section 2, provides the longest time for which the warming is NOT significant at the 95% level.Section 3, provides rankings of various data sets assuming the present ranking stays that way for the rest of the year.Section 1
This analysis uses the latest date that data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT) to the furthest date in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, I give the time from October so no one can accuse me of being less than honest if I say the slope is flat from a certain month.On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 3 months to an even 16 years.
1. UAH: since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months (goes to December)
2. GISS: since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months (goes to November)
3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since December 2000 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to August)
4. HadCrut3: since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to November)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since March 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to October)
6. RSS: since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December) RSS is 191/204 or 94% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or an even 12 years (goes to November.)
Here they are illustrated graphically;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
Here is an alternate graphical illustration;
you can recreate the graph directly here.
(Which of these illustrations do you prefer? Are they too cluttered to include in one graph? If so, how can we make this more user friendly?)Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level on various data sets.
For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is NOT significant for 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is NOT significant for 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.098 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is NOT significant for 17 years.
For GISS: 0.113 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996
(Note that we have concerns with using data from SkepticalScience.com, however we have not identified another source for this data. Does anyone know of a reliable alternative source where these data points can be readily accessed?Section 3
This section provides the latest monthly anomalies in order from January on. The bolded one is the highest for the year so far. I am treating all months equally and adding all anomalies and then dividing by the total number of months. This should not make a difference to the relative ranking at the end of the year unless there is a virtual tie between two years. After I give the average anomaly so far, I say where the year would rank if the anomaly were to stay that way for the rest of the year. I also show the warmest year on each data set along with the warmest month ever recorded on each data set. Then I show the previous year’s anomaly and rank.
The 2011 rankings for GISS, Hadcrut3, Hadsst2, and Hadcrut4 can be deduced at the following respectively:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txthttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txthttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txthttp://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.1.1.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
The latest rankings for UAH can be found here.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found here. (Others may also be found here)With the UAH anomaly for December at 0.202, the average for the twelve months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.282 + 0.202)/12 = 0.16. This would rank 9th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.419. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.130 and it will come in 10th.
With the GISS anomaly for November at 0.68, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.32 + 0.37 + 0.45 + 0.54 + 0.67 + 0.56 + 0.46 + 0.58 + 0.62 + 0.68 + 0.68)/11 = 0.54. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.89. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.514 and it will come in 10th assuming 2012 comes in 9th or warmer.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for November at 0.480, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.473 + 0.477 + 0.445 + 0.512+ 0.514 + 0.491 + 0.480)/11 = 0.417. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.The anomaly in 2011 was 0.340 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadsst2 anomaly for October at 0.428, the average for the first ten months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.385 + 0.440 + 0.449 + 0.428)/10 = 0.336. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.273 and it will come in 13th.
With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
With the Hadcrut4 anomaly for November at 0.512, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (0.288 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.525 + 0.531 + 0.506 + 0.470 + 0.532 + 0.515 + 0.524 + 0.512)/11 = 0.45. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. 2010 was the warmest at 0.54. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.818. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.399 and it will come in 13th.
Here are the above month to month changes illustrated graphically;
you can recreate the graph directly here.Appendix
In addition to the layout above, we also considered providing a summary for each temperature record, as is illustrated below for RSS. Please let us know if you find this format to be adventurous/preferred as compared to the category breakout above, and also please let us know if there are any additional analyses that might be valuable to incorporate.
RSS
1. With the RSS anomaly for November at 0.195, the average for the first eleven months of the year is (-0.060 -0.123 + 0.071 + 0.330 + 0.231 + 0.337 + 0.290 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294 + 0.195)/11 = 0.200. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2011 was 0.147 and it will come in 13th.
The rankings for RSS to the end of 2011 can be found here.
2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November). See:
Recreate graph here.
3. For RSS the warming is NOT significant for 23 years.
For RSS: +0.130 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
See here.
Put in 1990 for the start date; put in 2013 for the end date; click the RSS button; then calculate.About the Author: Werner Brozek was working on his metallurgical engineering degree using a slide rule when the first men landed on the moon. Now he enjoys playing with new toys such as the WFT graphs. Werner retired in 2011 after teaching high school physics and chemistry for 39 years.
—
Please let us know your thoughts and recommendations in comments below. Thanks Werner & Just The Facts

justthefactswuwt says:
January 3, 2013 at 8:36 pmYour call on what you want to update.
Of course that will depend on whether or not RSS for December and Hadsst2 for November come out by Sunday. And if it does, but time pressures prevent you from incorporating the changes, it is no big deal. I will just update early in the thread what needs updating.i.e. you send the article via email, thread or Submit Story and we can post it when you want.
There are real advantages to actually seeing the bold before submitting it so I may miss something if I send it by email. As for timing, I am tempted to say once all data is in for each data set each month, but Hadsst2 is still not out for November on January 3 so that idea may not work.I’ll be available for a bit tomorrow/Fri night and then for an hour or so before 2:00 PM MT on Sunday, so just drop any additions/replacements you’d like in this thread and I’ll incorporate them before I post it.
If new data comes, it gets updated on WFT at 8:00 P.M.MT so you should not expect anything after 10:00 P.M.MT on Saturday.Probably better to use a permalink (versus an article/link that will need to be updated monthly) if we can
I see no reason not to make this link permanent.RSS is 191/204
should now be RSS is 192/204(Note that we Have 2 ( ) or none.With the UAH anomaly for December at 0.202, the average for the twelve months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.282 + 0.202)/12 = 0.16.
Sorry I goofed in an earlier post here. Just the 0.339 should be bolded to read:
With the UAH anomaly for December at 0.202, the average for the twelve months of the year is (-0.134 -0.135 + 0.051 + 0.232 + 0.179 + 0.235 + 0.130 + 0.208 + 0.339 + 0.333 + 0.282 + 0.202)/12 = 0.16.2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to November). See:
Change to: 2. RSS has a flat slope since January 1997 or 16 years (goes to December). See:
Thanks!

justthefactswuwt says: December 30, 2012 at 9:09 pm
I am glad I can help, and I appreciate that you’ve helped spur me to build out more of the WUWT Global Paleoclimate Reference Page, which should be live in the coming weeks. Here’s a sneak peek:
——————————————
thanks again, nice collection of graphs, will study them;

Werner Brozek says: January 3, 2013 at 9:56 pmThere are real advantages to actually seeing the bold before submitting it so I may miss something if I send it by email. As for timing, I am tempted to say once all data is in for each data set each month, but Hadsst2 is still not out for November on January 3 so that idea may not work.
We’ll figure out something(Note that we Have 2 ( ) or none.
Not noted, what am I missing?

justthefactswuwt says:
January 6, 2013 at 12:23 pm
(Note that we Have 2 ( ) or none.
Not noted, what am I missing?
A very minor detail, but see below. Note the ( ). This is how it appeared:
(Note that we have concerns with using data from SkepticalScience.com, however we have not identified another source for this data. Does anyone know of a reliable alternative source where these data points can be readily accessed?
Should be:
(Note that we have concerns with using data from SkepticalScience.com, however we have not identified another source for this data. Does anyone know of a reliable alternative source where these data points can be readily accessed?)
Or
Note that we have concerns with using data from SkepticalScience.com, however we have not identified another source for this data. Does anyone know of a reliable alternative source where these data points can be readily accessed?
Thanks for fixing the UAH so fast!

Werner Brozek says: January 6, 2013 at 2:03 pmA very minor detail, but see below. Note the ( ). This is how it appeared:
Got it. Corrected, I added the other half.Thanks for fixing the UAH so fast!
I will be around for the next 5 – 6 hours and will be able to make updates readily. I will be offline for most of tomorrow, but tomorrow night I will check in and make additional updates, same for the rest of the week..

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy